The Corps of Engineers through its civil works, environmental
protection, and energy programs comes into close contact with the civilian
community. Unfortunately, the Corps' views or operations in these programs do
not always match those of the civil sector and the Army must respond to the
resulting litigation. This chapter details the major activities in civil works,
environmental protection, energy, and litigation (against both Corps and
non-Corps Army activities).

Total appropriations for Civil Works projects increased
approximately $262 million over the FY 83 level with the largest change in the Operation and Maintenance, General, category.

Millions

General Investigations

$165

Construction, General

1,490

Operation and Maintenance, General

1,416

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries

427

All Other

183

Total

$3,681

Representatives from the Directorate of Civil Works met with
a member of the Soil Conservation Service on 22 May 1984 to delineate flood
response and recovery authority during the flood season and each agency's policy
for rehabilitating non-federal levees. The conferees agreed to maintain a close
liaison so that interservice problems could be resolved quickly as they arose
during an emergency.

On 9 July, representatives of the two agencies discussed
federal policy for rehabilitating non-federal levees. After comparing policies
and responsibilities for this repair work, the conferees agreed to meet later to
define areas of responsibility, thereby eliminating confusion when applicants
sought federal assistance. In early September, after more discussions, the
Director of Civil Works sent an information memorandum to the Assistant
Secretary of the

[213]

Army (Civil Works) (ASA[CW]) outlining the agreed upon
delineation of responsibilities. The Corps would pursue requirements for 80/20
cost sharing and public sponsorship and would consider limited delegated
authority to district commanders to approve rehabilitation projects.

During FY 84, the Corps concluded a seven year study to
examine the causes of streambank erosion, to evaluate the effectiveness of
existing and new methods of bank protection, and to prepare a report for
Congress. The COE published its findings in a booklet, "Streambank Protection
Guidelines," and distributed 20,000 copies, primarily to landowners and local
governments. On 1 October 1983, the Corps and the Soil Conservation Service
began an $8.2 million study of the erosion problem on the Upper Yazoo River that
undermined bridges, ruined farmland, and caused downstream flooding. Both
agencies expected the study to lead to improved erosion control techniques that
could be used nationwide.

Local levee districts and landowners in Missouri sought a permanent injunction against the Corps of Engineers to keep it from artificially crevassing the frontline levees of the Birds Point New Madrid Floodway. The U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction on 10 May 1983, but the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the suit returned for a full hearing. The hearing,
Story v. Marsh, covered two primary issues: whether the Corps' operation plan was arbitrary and capricious and whether the United States should be stopped from operating the floodway. The five-day hearing decided against the Corps on both counts, and on 31 October 1983 the District Court continued in effect the 10 May injunction prohibiting the Corps from operating the floodway The federal government immediately appealed. In April 1984, the Circuit Court reversed the lower court on all points, lifted the injunction, and denied all of the plaintiffs' attempts for a rehearing.

The eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980 caused several
subsequent problems for the Corps. In November, it announced several methods of
dealing with two of these-the debris dam on Spirit Lake and sediment in the
Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers. The Corps of Engineers preferred to build a buried
conduit through the dam to drain the lake's water into the Toutle River, thus
reducing the level of Spirit Lake by twenty feet. However, public concern over
drainage through a possibly unstable debris dam caused the COE to route the
tunnel through rock instead. On 23 February, the Chief of Engineers asked the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to approve recommendations for the
stabilized level of the lake and the new tunnel alignment. The Corps finished
the

[214]

final environmental impact statement for the 8,500-foot
tunnel in April 1984 and started preliminary work on 2 July.

Despite several Corps-funded dredging operations to remove sediment from the Toutle and Cowlitz Rivers in the fall of 1983, the Corps of Engineers failed to maintain 100 year flood protection for all communities along the lower Cowlitz. The Corps determined that dredging an additional three million cubic yards of sediment at a cost of $9.0 million had to begin by mid January to preserve the present 50 year flood protection at Castle Rock, Washington. Otherwise, by March the flood protection would drop to a 10-year level. The COE awarded two Construction, General-funded contracts on 18 January to dredge the sediment. The contractors removed 2,881,000 cubic yards of sediment at a cost of $6.5 million. This excavation, along with favorable runoff conditions during December and January, improved the area's flood protection levels.

Early in FY 84, the Director of Civil Works sent to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) the general plan prepared by the
Mobile District for interim flood control measures on the Pearl River at
Jackson, Mississippi. Congress authorized these on 30 July 1983. The Mobile
District requested $600,000 for preconstruction planning activities. After OCE
review, the Director of Civil Works approved $400,000 to continue planning and
engineering studies but not to initiate specifications and plans work. He
deferred the request for plans and specifications as well as construction
funding until two issues were resolved. These were the justification for 108
acres of mitigation land not adjacent to the project and the most cost effective
design for a wave barrier in Ross Barnett Reservoir.

The Mississippi congressional delegation questioned the
substantial reduction in the Corps' plans for flood control and the final
disposition of the funds deleted from the Jackson project. The Director of Civil
Works, in response, pointed out that Congress' authorization for the interim
flood control measures came at a time when the Mobile District had very
preliminary plans and that the ongoing planning and design process would refine
these plans and the COE would recommend only those measures that met federal
standards. The final comprehensive flood control plan recommended by the Corps
would provide a substantially higher level of protection than the interim plans
then being considered. Furthermore, the Director assured the congressmen that
appropriations in excess of requirements would not be spent on other projects.

The Director of Civil Works, in March 1984, submitted a
revised plan on the interim measures to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works). On 27 April, Jackson officials received $2.5

[215]

million dollars in federal money to finance a flood-reducing
clearing project on the Pearl River. However, the Corps turned down the proposal
to strengthen the Ross Barnett Reservoir.

Flooding of the three forks of the Kentucky River and two
forks of the Big Sandy River in Kentucky produced damage estimates of $234
million in fourteen counties. However, Huntington District engineers estimated
that dams prevented a further $154 million worth of damage during the same
period.

New England Division engineers estimated that Corps-built
projects in the Connecticut River Basin prevented over $58 million of damage
during the December 1983 flood and that the Stamford hurricane barrier deterred
$50,000 in damages during a 28 February 1984 storm. In fact, Corps flood control
projects in New England set a new record for saving property during FY 84. Corps
reservoirs and local protection efforts prevented $780 million in losses during
flooding from April through June.

During the December 1983 flood, Baltimore District flood
control projects deterred over $914 million in damages, primarily in the
Susquehanna River Basin. A further $864 million in savings occurred in February
1984 and cumulative loss prevention totaled almost $2 billion during FY 84,
surpassing the previous record of $978 million in FY 76.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the district court which upheld the Corps of Engineers' denial of a permit for
filling 8.2 acres of tidal wetlands in Ocean City, Maryland. Shoreline
Associates planned to build a waterfront townhouse development on the filled
wetlands. For the first time, the Fourth Circuit Court directly addressed the
Corps' procedures for considering permit applications and found those procedures
adequate even though they did not provide for formal submission of evidence,
cross-examination, or rebuttal.

A settlement agreement in National Wildlife Federal v
Marsh required the Department of the Army to publish proposed regulations
for its permit program delineating the status of categories of waters,
nationwide permits, rights of private property owners, effect of the 404 (b) (1)
guidelines, Corps' deference to local land use decisions, and regulation of
solid waste discharged into U.S. waters. The Corps published these proposed
regulations in the Federal Register on 29 March 1984 after coordinating their
content with the ASA(CW), the Department of Justice, the Army Counsel, the EPA,
the intervenors, and the plaintiffs. The Director of Civil Works sent a draft of
the final permit regulations and five regulatory guidance letters essen-

[216]

tial to their implementation to the ASA(CW) in August. At the
end of FY 84, the Corps still awaited a final decision.

At the direction of the ASA(CW), the Civil Works Directorate
drafted guidance on permit decision documentation for especially important or
controversial cases. This guidance proved to be necessary after two court
decisions remanded permit decisions back to districts, largely because of
incomplete documentation in the areas of cumulative impacts, determination of
wetland importance, practicable alternatives, and water dependence.

The Corps "pulled the plug" on the divide cut of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway on 20 January 1984, providing full-width navigation
from Pickwick Pool to Bay Springs Lock and Dam. The 39mile-long Divide Section
took ten years to complete.

Between 21 and 22 July 1984, an extensive 2,400-foot-long
shoal formed along Crats (Hershey) Island on the Upper Mississippi, stopping all
barge traffic. The Corps attributed the shoaling to sediment from the Chippewa
River and sent the dredge Thompson to open a passage. The dredge
completed a pilot channel on 27 July permitting traverse of the shoaled area by
awaiting tows. Continued dredging, natural stream flow, and wash from transiting
tows completely reopened the channel.

During FY 84, the Southwestern Division, Corps of Engineers,
proposed moving certain dam safety functions out of the Albuquerque and Little
Rock Districts and consolidating them in the Tulsa District. A decrease in
design and construction of major civil works projects and a reduction in dam
safety technical staffs in those two districts necessitated the changes.

In October 1983, the Director of Civil Works sent an update
on the one state/one district boundary realignment plan to the ASA(CW). The
plan's goal was to eliminate the division of states between two Corps districts.
During FY 84, Kansas went to the Kansas City District, Wyoming transferred to
the Omaha District, and Vermont joined the New England Division. Colorado,
however, remained divided.

The Corps of Engineers played a major role in the RESPONSE 84
earthquake exercise conducted by FEMA on 7-8 August 1984. The exercise clearly
demonstrated the need for Corps engineering and construction contracting
expertise in the event of a major earthquake anywhere in the United States.

On 15 March 1984, a tornado caused $8 million in damages to
an Arkansas state highway bridge and blew the superstructure into Greers Ferry
Lake, destroying a pipeline that provided drinking

[217]

water to two communities. Although Arkansas designed and
built the bridge, Little Rock District personnel assisted in the recovery
effort.

A General Accounting Office report, released in January 1984,
revealed that the Corps took an average of 26 years to begin construction on a
project for which a survey was authorized. The study of 18 flood control
projects, 16 navigation projects, and a multipurpose water project awarded
construction funding between FY 78 and FY 83, showed an average of 29.4 years
for flood control projects, 21.6 years for navigation projects, and an overall
average of 26.1 years. The GAO noted, however, that 45 percent of the time lag
was due to the Corps' waiting for congressional construction authorization and
funding.

A proposal by Virginia Beach to withdraw up to 60 million
gallons of water daily from Lake Gaston, North Carolina, brought determined
resistance from that state. North Carolina's Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.,
expressed his concern that the pipeline would decrease the flow of the Roanoke
and Chowan Rivers, thereby causing pollution buildup and algae growth at the
upper end of Albermarle Sound. The North Carolina government delivered a 35 page
document to the Corps of Engineers in November 1983 claiming that construction
of the proposed $176 million pipeline would hurt the striped bass, hydroelectric
power, and water recreation in the Lake Gaston area. Furthermore, the document
argued that the 85-mile pipeline would violate federal laws on the interbasin
transfer of water, and the Corps would need congressional approval before
starting the project. On 12 January 1984, the state of North Carolina filed suit
against the Secretary of the Army, the ASA(CW), the Chief of Engineers, and the
Norfolk District Engineer, alleging that on 9 January the Corps had illegally
issued the city of Virginia Beach a permit to construct a water intake structure
on Lake Gaston, since no environmental impact statement had been prepared and
since the Water Supply Act of 1958 mandated congressional approval for the
project.

The North Carolina suit involved generally the same issues
and facts as that filed by the city of Virginia Beach on 9 January against the
Roanoke River Basin Association, seeking declaratory relief against the Governor
of North Carolina and others. In addition, the Virginia Beach v Champion
International case sought to resolve water rights questions associated with
the proposed water intake facilities.

In May, a new Corps study presented evidence that the
pipeline was the best method to ensure the future drinking water supply of the
Virginia Beach area. The Corps defied the House Appropria-

[218]

tions Committee in September by refusing to prepare an
environmental study on the project. It justified this stand by claiming that
laws allowing the Corps to decide when an environmental impact statement is
necessary overruled the committee's direction.

In December 1983, the United States sued a group of
manufacturers for the recovery of natural resource damages in the Acushnet
River, New Bedford Harbor, and Buzzards Bay areas of Massachusetts. The
Environmental Protection Agency joined the suit in February. The suit alleged
that the defendants' operation of capacitor plants resulted in polychlorinated
biphenyls discharged into the river and harbors. Federal Pacific Electric Co., a
defendant, filed a counterclaim charging that the Corps' dredging operations had
caused the damage by disturbing and transporting contaminated sediment.

A U.S. District Court judge ruled in March 1984 that the
Corps of Engineers had abdicated its responsibility under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, when it issued a permit for a proposed resort
development on Galveston Island, Texas. The judge decided that the permit was
not sufficiently supported by an environmental impact statement and therefore
the permit-wag-unreasonable and arbitrary. The court ordered the Corps to
prepare an environmental impact statement including "all past, present, and
reasonable foreseeable developments."

In August 1984, the Corps transferred its Chesapeake Bay
Model operation and maintenance to the state of Maryland for its use in the Bay
cleanup program. The Director of Civil Works, in September, sent a letter to
Senator Charles Mathias stating that the ASA(CW) and the Director supported the
establishment of a federal coordination agreement to assist in restoring the
bay.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan
Washington Council on Governments sent a letter, on 23 July, to the Secretary of
the Army asking him to assign the primary responsibility for evaluating the
hydrilla problem in the Potomac River and for developing a plan of action by the
Corps of Engineers. The Corps stated that it had started work on the problem and
would continue the program during FY 85.

Despite objections by environmentalists, a U.S. District
Court judge ruled, on 5 January 1984, that the Corps could proceed with the
completion of an expanded Barbers Point Harbor inn Honolulu. The judge decided
that the COE had taken sufficient notice of the potential environmental
consequences of the project and need not engage in discussions of any other
"remote and highly speculative consequences." Several Waianae Coast residents
had started the suit in 1982.

[219]

In July 1984, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved the
legal adequacy of the Cooper Reservoir (Texas) Project's supplemental
environmental impact statement and lifted the injunction that had prevented
construction since 1971.

During FY 84, the two studies attempted to determine whether
the turbines at the Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir, Warsaw, Missouri, could
be successfully operated in reverse as pumps without endangering fish
populations in the Lake of the Ozarks. A task group of the Truman coordination
team and Corps-funded independent review by the University of Missouri will
submit a definitive decision by March 1985.

In the decade since the OPEC cartel imposed a substantial oil
price hike, the Army undertook numerous initiatives to reduce energy
consumption. Started as a program to reduce dependence upon foreign energy
sources, the Army Energy Program now has evolved to include economics, and will
remain a priority issue in the Army's planning operational activities.

The Army implemented its energy conservation program to meet
the presidentially assigned goal of reducing energy usage per square foot of
active floor space by 20 percent of the FY 75 level. The mobility energy goal
was to reduce administrative fuel (MOGAS) consumption by 15 percent and limit
operational readiness fuel (diesel and aviation) use to the FY 75 level. The
Army did not meet its FY 84 targets. Facility energy consumption was 5.7 percent
over the target and mobility energy used exceeded the target by 3.4 percent. The
Energy Conservation Investment Program, the Energy Engineering Analysis Program,
and the Energy Conservation and Management Program aimed at identifying and
implementing energy projects for fixed facilities. Although these projects
started to come on-line during FY 84 and produced energy savings, wastage still
occurred. To eliminate further or at least reduce this waste, the Army continued
its DA Energy Seminars that promoted energy awareness at the installation level.
Thirteen CONUS and OCONUS installations held the seminar during FY 84 and 18
will be held in FY 85.

More than 1,300 lawsuits involving the Army were pending in
federal, state, and foreign courts at the end of FY 84. Many of these actions
challenged significant Army activities, policies, and deci-

[220]

sions. The RELOOK cases, involving over 100 Reserve officers
released from Active duty because of their nonselection for temporary promotion,
came closer to final resolution. The plaintiffs claimed that the original
selection boards had insufficient Reserve representation and that the Army's
reconsideration through special RELOOK boards was inadequate. In March 1984, the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for a
rehearing in Bockoven v. Marsh and left intact the court's ruling that
the RELOOK remedy was adequate and that 1976 promotion boards had "appropriate"
Reserve representation. Definitive resolution of these issues in Bockoven
should control the other RELOOK cases. Therefore, all related cases in the
Claims Court were suspended pending the Supreme Court's decision upon the
plaintiffs' application for certiorari in Bockoven.

The Army's right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks
continued to face tests in the courts. In Watkins v. United States Army,
the Court of Appeals issued a mandate overturning the District Court's order
that directed the Army to reenlist Watkins, an admitted homosexual, discharged
by the Army for that reason. In Rick v Secretary of the Army, the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to Army policy regarding the
discharge of homosexuals brought by a former enlisted soldier discharged for
fraudulently concealing previous homosexual acts at the time he enlisted..
Mathezos v. Marsh involved an admitted lesbian who was removed from the ROTC
program at the University of Maine. In April 1984, the District Court ruled that
the plaintiff's removal solely on the basis of her admission that she was
homosexual, but without evidence of her committing homosexual acts, violated her
First Amendment right of free speech. The Army still awaited the court's ruling
on its appeal at the end of FY 84. In an administrative proceeding, the
Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations attempted to preclude Temple
University from allowing military recruiters to use the services of its law
school placement office. Two homosexual students and the commission claimed that
by permitting this, Temple University impermissibly aided and abetted
discrimination based upon sexual orientation because the military excluded
homosexuals. The Army entered the proceeding as an amicus and filed a
brief contending that the Supremacy Clause precluded Philadelphia from taking
action against Temple University.

In the area of political questions and activities, pacifist
groups sued school boards in Chicago and Atlanta to obtain the same access to
schools given to military recruiters. The Army provided information to the
school boards in both cases and prepared amicus

[221]

briefs. In Katcoff v. Alexander, the court ruled that
the Army chaplaincy "is a constitutionally mandated end," and did not violate
the principle of separation of church and state. An appeal is pending.

In sole parent litigation, the only pending case was the
class action Mark v. Rumsfeld, which challenged the Army's policies on the
enlistment of sole parents in the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National
Guard. Cross-motions for summary judgment awaited a judicial decision at the end
of FY84.

Vietnam veterans sued the manufacturers of Agent Orange on a
product liability theory and impleaded the government. In December 1980, the
court dismissed the United States as a third party defendant based upon the
Feres doctrine but withheld final judgment in favor of the government,
presumably to facilitate discovery. In February 1984, the court reinstated the
United States as a defendant in the litigation for the claims of spouses and
children of Vietnam veterans exposed to the herbicide. The government's appeal
proved unsuccessful. On the eve of the trial in May 1984, the chemical
manufacturers settled out of court and agreed to establish a $180 million fund
for the payment of claims arising from exposure to Agent Orange. The United
States remained a defendant in the case at the end of the fiscal year.

A number of nuclear and drug testing cases remained pending
during FY 84. In Broudy v. United States, the Court of Appeals ruled that
a service member exposed to nuclear radiation could sue the government for
damages. The Army sought Supreme Court review. In Stanley v. United States,
the Army appealed a district court decision that a service member who
participated in drug experimentation was not precluded from suing because his
participation was voluntary. The Army moved for summary judgment in the related
cases of Barrett v. United States, Barrett v Hoffman, and Barrett v.
Author, which involved the death of a civilian after being administered
mescaline by an Army research contractor. At the end of FY 84, the Army awaited
notice of a hearing date.

Harris v. Marsh, claiming pervasive race discrimination at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, continued as the Army's most significant race
discrimination case. In January 1984, trial began on the first of 50 cases.
During FY 84, the court dismissed 14 cases with prejudice on the plaintiffs
motion and dismissed 12 others on procedural grounds. The Army, arguing that
some of the cases' claims were frivolous, moved for sanctions. The remaining
cases will be tried in January 1985. The Army defeated class certification in
Hillis v. Marsh, which alleged race discrimination in promotions at the
Red River Army Depot, and prepared for trial on individual claims in early 1985.

[222]

The Army faced a deluge of litigation in the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, challenging decisions in favor of the Department of the
Army by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Pro se petitioners filed most
of these appeals and alleged that the adverse action was unsupported by adequate
evidence. The court uniformly affirmed the board's decisions.

The Army also saw more filings in district courts seeking to
impose individual liability upon Department of the Army officials based upon
common law and constitutional tort theories. The Army was significantly
successful in protecting officials from liability through pretrial motions, with
only one case resulting in a money judgment against a DA official.

A troubling development in tort litigation was the use of
artful pleading to overcome express bars to claims under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (FICA). Three prominent examples involved the foreign claims and intentional
tort exceptions to the FICA. The foreign claims exception precluded "any claim
arising in a foreign country." To circumvent this clear and unambiguous
language, plaintiffs in Morris v. United States and Conley v. United
States claimed negligence by The Surgeon General in selection, retention,
and supervision of the treating medical personnel in Germany as the basis of
their suits, rather than the actual negligent medical treatment. The Army moved
to dismiss Morris and continued discovery in Conley.

Plaintiffs used a similar approach to avoid the intentional
tort exception which barred "any claim arising out of assault, battery . . ."
They attempted to overcome this express exception by claiming negligent
supervision by military superiors as the basis of their cases rather than the
actual tortious act by the federal employee or soldier who inflicted the injury.
In Shearer v. United States, the plaintiff succeeded with this approach
before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Army's petition for
certiorari remained pending at the end of the fiscal year.

Another development of increasing significance concerned
affirmative litigation efforts in the medical care recovery area. In several
jurisdictions, the effect of no-fault insurance showed a steadily rising number
of no-fault insurers refusing to pay the government's medical care claims. At
the end of FY 84, Congress was considering remedial legislation.

Fiscal year 1984 saw an increase in the number of Contract
Disputes Act cases filed directly in the United States Claims Court, rather than
with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, C3, Inc. v. United States,
one of the most significant, arose out of a dispute over a contract for
computer equipment. The plaintiff

[223]

sued for $1 million, and the Army countersued for $4.2
million for fraud by C3, Inc. The court suspended trial proceedings pending the
outcome of a federal grand jury investigation.

In contrast, the number of disappointed bidder suits seeking
injunctive relief sharply declined during the year. Among the most interesting
was M.N. C. of Hinesville, Inc. v. Department of Defense, in which a
newspaper publishing company challenged the selection of a competitor to publish
the civilian enterprise newspaper at Fort Stewart, Georgia. The court denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in January 1984.

The Judge Advocate General's Office devoted a significant
amount of time responding to requests for documents from both parties in retired
General William Westmoreland's libel suit against the Columbia Broadcasting
System. The Army maintained a policy of strict impartiality in this private
litigation.

In United States v Shell Oil Co., the Army filed a
$1.8 billion affirmative claim against Shell Oil Company under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act for hazardous waste
cleanup costs. Shell created the waste as a byproduct of its pesticide
production under a 20 year lease at Rocky Mountain Arsenal. The Judge Advocate
General's Office spent much of FY 84 developing an automated litigation support
system to cope with the massive discovery requirements in the case. Shell lost
its motion to strike the $1.8 billion figure from the suit as well as its motion
for dismissal of the Army's contractual claims for indemnification.

The Judge Advocate General established a Contract Fraud
Branch on 1 January 1984 to provide a central point for the coordination of all
civil, criminal, contractual, and administrative remedies pertaining to
contractor fraud. During the remainder of FY 84, the Army suspended 22
contractors and debarred 44 contractors from contracting with the government. In
September 1983, the Army suspended a holding company, one of whose subsidiaries
held the Army laundry contract in Europe, based upon an indictment for bribery,
conspiracy, mail fraud, false statements, income tax evasion, and racketeering.
The defendants awaited sentencing at the end of FY 84. During the fiscal year,
the Army proposed debarring a manufacturing company because of contract
nonperformance. The Army claimed that the company willfully provided over 9,000
defective crankshafts to the Army for military standard engines for a loss of
over $1 million. The Judge Advocate General investigated a manufacturer of
electronic components for several Army weapon systems for making false claims
and false statements. Not yet indicted, the company offered a settlement in
which it would plead guilty to sev-

[224]

eral counts of false claims and false statements, would pay
approximately $2.6 million in damages under the False Claims Act, and would make
specific safeguards to prevent further recurrence. The Army, acting as the DOD
Executive Agent, would agree that DOD would not suspend or debar the company. At
the close of FY 84, the proposal was being coordinated within DOD.